Talk:EE TV

Advertising
it seems a bit like an advert at times; "saving £7!". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.16.46.236 (talk • contribs).


 * This page is pure advertising - take it off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.197.120 (talk • contribs).


 * I agree with the above posts, this page feels a bit like a commercial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ocanica (talk • contribs).


 * Yes, well I've added a piece about the dreadful customer service I've experienced, its terrible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.116.35 (talk • contribs).


 * I too have experienced "dreadful" customer service regarding this product. This should definitely be added. --86.137.25.168 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly objectionable in having a page about BT vision, but there are a number of aspects of the way it is presented that make it objectionable:

(1) the box and logo on the right look completely like advertising - I expected to go to the BT page if I clicked on them. In any case, the content of the box seems wrong - it looks as though it is trying to say what kind of business BT is in, but this is not what it contains - BT vision is not a separate company, and so the content just seems wrong.

(2) The entire content (of the rest of the article) should concentrate on the facts of what is currently available, or should state something like "the BT company states that the service is planned to offer...". As it is it is simply not factual - it is speculation.

(3) Complaints about customer service are not really a valid reason to remove the content. I might dislike the taste of sprouts, but that is not a reason to remove an article about them.

'Costs' and 'Contents deals' sections
May I suggest simply removing the sections on 'Costs' and 'Contents deals'? The article will be better for it. Anyone wanting to know more can simply follow the link to the BT Vision website. --Malcolmxl5 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting this article from a neutral point of view
Given the comments about this article looking like an advertisement or a commercial and also the template, I'm going to be bold and try and rewrite this in a more objective, NPOV and veritable style in line with WP:SOAP. Give me two minutes... --Malcolmxl5 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There, it's done. Any comments will be most welcomed. --Malcolmxl5 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BTVISIONLOGO.jpg
Image:BTVISIONLOGO.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding COMTREND adaptors
Regardless of whether amateur radio operators are the only people complaining, the fact is that these devices fail to meet EMC regulations yet have not been recalled. I have edited this page 4 times now to reflect that fact and 4 times that fact and associated links have been removed. EMC causes problems for everyone so I believe its relevent.

Glowplug1 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the point you're making but you're making some fairly severe allegations with the tone of the text you've been inserting. "BT has yet to issue an official recall" presupposes that a recall is necessary. Ofcom - for one - appear to disagree. The links you quote are of interest of course, but they're self-published sources (a youtube video and an image of a chart uploaded to photobucket) which does not meet the Wikipedia criteria of a "reliable source" (i.e. published test results in a respected industry journal or other reputable publication). Personally I do feel that these issues are of relevance more to powerline technology than BT vision, (since lots of people and companies use Powerline adaptors, not just BT Vision customers) and would be best discussed in the more relevant article - but of course I imagine there will be differing views on that and that's fine too. I've tried to back up the points you've been making with more reliable reports (e.g. industry journals, and the report in The Register) and with more balanced text, but you've reverted these changes in favour of what appears to be a more inflammatory style of rhetoric. Utimately it's hard to support the kind of text which you appear to wish to write (e.g. "BT issuing illegal kit and yet they won't recall it") without much much better, rock-solid proof of fact. The fact that Ofcom don't see this as a major issue would seem to indicate that maybe it's actually not that noteworthy. But again, I fully appreciate that your mileage may vary. Bonusballs (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved this into its own section within the article and also removed the duplicated text (as you had several paragraphs repeated straight after themselves) so that it can be better discussed and addressed. Bonusballs (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is definite data out there, the problem is that Ofcom are [or seem to be] avoiding the facts as the level of complaints is relatively low. People with wireless keyboards will have problems if they or a close neighbour use Comtrend PLT adaptor, as will short wave radio enthusiasts, CB users, Amateur radio operators. Further reading is HERE.

In particular pay attention to: ---begin extract The RSGB’s complaint (published on their website, www.rsgb.org) was made on 31 July, just four weeks before Ofcom’s PLT statement. That’s hardly sufficient time for them to consider the evidence in detail and then write their response, if they could actually have been bothered to do so. Which they weren’t. Indeed, their response does not even mention the two central points of RSGB’s complaint:

a) Comtrend’s PLT products emit conducted noise at levels way above the limits in EN55022, the most relevant EMC product standard

b) They rely for their EMC Declaration of Conformity on a discredited CISPR committee draft (CISPR/I/89) – simply a committee paper – never a published standard – which anyway was withdrawn several years ago.

AND also:

And where does the test of “significant public harm” arise in the EMC Regulations? None of these issues exist anywhere other than in the fevered brains of Ofcom’s spin-doctors, who hope to convey the impression that they have some meaning – some relevance to the issue of interference from PLT, which of course they do not. ---end extract

Further reading: A low level of complaints is not evidence of compliance (An update on the EMCIA’s position on PLT) By EurIng Keith Armstrong, C.Eng, MIET, MIEEE, www.cherryclough.com [here]

So you see the evidence is strong, Ofcoms position or specifically lack of enforcement, doesnt mean that both sides shouldnt be given or that facts shouldnt be presented and I feel its relevent to have some mention (perhaps more concisely as the page is mainly BT Vision) on the BT Vision page.

BT have failed to recall them and given the facts above I do believe that needs to be mentioned.

Lastly, you say "The fact that Ofcom don't see this as a major issue would seem to indicate that maybe it's actually not that noteworthy"....I'd say that would simply indicate Ofcom are not taking action.

Glowplug1 (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The neutrality of the 'powerline' section is still very much in doubt, and the POV tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved. That's not achieved by inserting more and more loaded text about homeplugs. The relevance of any of this to BT Vision is highly questionable, they are neither the only seller, vendor, or user of this technology. This article is an inappropriate venue for radio amateurs to campaign. Bonusballs (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir. As a former EMC engineer I take great exception to the above entry from 'Bonusballs'. Please cite which university you obtained your electronics engineering degree from and we will have something further to discuss. Without a suitable qualification in the relevant field your comments are neither valid nor useful. "Loaded text" was not added, I edited the previous entry to reflect a more balanced position. With regard to the relevancy of said contribution, BT provide the adapters as part of their product, "BT Vision". As such, it is both right and fair that a deficiency relating to the product be highlighted. I have in my possession a test report from a Notified Body which shows that the Comtrend adapters provided with the product do not conform to the limits prescribed in international law.

'Bonusballs' you seem to be of the opinion that this is a campaign by Radio Amateurs. The Electromagnetic Compatibility Industry Association (EMCIA) are not Hams - they are a UK Trade & Investment Accredited Industry Association for EMC - an aspect of Type Approval which is not only relevant but to some extent determines the development of all electronic products which can be sold in Europe. The EMCIA have become involved in this 'debate' because a product (in fact a technology) is presently available for sale in the UK which does not conform to the legislation to which all modern electronic products MUST conform.

By allowing a single product or technology to usurp the protection laws put in place to ensure compatibility, places the entire Standards system in jeopardy; why should one company be allowed to 'get away with it' and another, not? The laws and Standards are in place to ensure the best chance of a 'fair playing field' for all and a safe and happy environment for all.

In questioning the neutrality of this section you question the validity of the results of an internationally Accredited Notified Body. Good luck defending that in court. ..

Every person has the right to make an informed choice. You are asking for information to be removed and thereby denying that freedom. Would you remove the cancer warning from cigarette packets? I hope not. In Linz, Austria fairly recently a disaster relief drill was halted by powerline network interference. One final point I would like to make, Further up this page it is said "Ofcom for one appear to disagree". I have had the pleasure of trawling their archives recently where there are around a dozen reports on the PLT technology. Written by respected organisations these appear to come out against PLT in the order of 5:1 against. Just because a UK regulator thinks the sky should be red, does not make the sky red.

BT Vision as a product has a component of that product relying on a technology which is inappropriate, derives its Type Approval from a discredited committee draft and conspicuously exceeds all prescribed limits. Someone felt that it was prudent to make this known. The fact that it may not have been well written or well-handled does not detract from the validity of the subject. I suggest that the section is carefully rewritten with a verifiable bibliography so that readers that are interested may make their own minds up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G7cnf (talk • contribs) 15:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir, while I appreciate your position, I reject your attempted "argument from authority" - i.e. the suggestion that without a degree in electrical engineering, I am not qualified or not able to make a valid point. This is, of course, not true.


 * While there is doubtless much of interest to discuss on the topic of interference to amateur radio by homeplugs, there are two points to consider. One - that BT Vision is not the place to have that argument. You may as well add this information to articles about Dell Computers, HP Printers, Intel Network Cards, the Apple Mactintosh, because these devices are also used alongside homeplug technology. And, I would suggest, far more commonly than they are with BT Vision boxes! But such a thing would be ludicrous - the only logical place for such issues to be raised is directly on a page where it is relevant, and that is the page about Homeplugs itself. Secondly - no matter where the argument occurs, Wikipedia is NOT a forum for argument and debate. Wikipedia is a factual, knowledge-driven venue, a place for information which is actual, which is true and verified and known, and which can be backed up with cast-iron references from reliable sources . (See: WP:RS) Wikipedia is NOT a venue for opinion, for speculation, for campaigning. Reliable sources do NOT include links to youtube videos and anonymous "photobucket" uploads showing a graph which has no indication of backing up the claim being made the in article. (See: WP:SPS) If claims like this are to be made in an encyclopaedic venue such as Wikipedia, then they need to be cast-iron claims made by reputable and recognised authorities. If such claims have weight, they will generally be added by other editors - the alteration of articles by "interested parties" (See: WP:COI) is generally frowned upon as the quality of what results is rarely neutral or balanced.


 * If your argument is against Homeplug technology in general, and you believe that there is significant information of note which has not been included in relevant articles, then the relevant article is the place for that information. I am not asking for information to be removed - I am suggesting that it is put in the right place. The fact that you choose instead to bring that information into the BT Vision article gives every appearance that you are allied with the UK Radio Amateur campaign which, for some reason, is singling out BT Vision rather than Homeplug technology in general.


 * I support your suggestion that the information relating to this issue is re-written, as currently it breaches numerous Wikipedia standards. I see that you've already made useful additions to the Power line communication article, so I really do suggest that the points you're making are best addressed there, where (if that is your aim) they will reach a far wider audience, rather than in a highly specific and unrelated venue such as the article for a small video-on-demand service in the UK. Just a suggestion. Bonusballs (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Have replaced "citation required" templates with what i believe to be relevant and factual information, references and links to relevent sources.

Please check these out and remove "disputed" status.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.123.76 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of the problem here is that the references being quoted do not (and could never) support the highly biased and opinionated text. Phrases like "a document which was acrimoniously removed from the IEC website", and "has been thoroughly discredited by the EMC industry" simply do not meet Wikipedia standards of neutrality. I think we're making progress on the neutrality of the initial paragraphs, but the last one continues to give grave cause for concern, for these and other reasons. The referenced transcript of evidence given to a Parliamentary enquiry does not even mention the alleged document which has allegedly "been thoroughly discredited by the EMC industry" yet it is cited as a reference for that statement as if it proves it to be the case. The same transcript is used to cite the claim "it has been determined that the technology cannot meet the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC Essential Requirements, Article 5", yet the transcript merely re-states that claim rather than offers evidence to prove it - the only reference that the transcript cites is the EU directive itself, rather than evidence that "determines" that "the technology cannot meet the EMC Directive", as the text in this Wiki article states. I'm inclined to think that the last paragraph should be removed in its entirety. I think the rest of the section covers the nature of the issue sufficiently (again, on the assumption that it absolutely MUST be in this article at all, which I still dispute, but in the spirit of compromise and all...) Bonusballs (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the final comment on this topic was in April and it now being September with the current version looking to me acceptably NPOV I am going to go ahead and remove the tag on the main article page as I think it is no longer relevant. The long time gap seems to me evidence the dispute is now resolved.  I will put a small see more link to the main Power line communication article for those seeking more detailed information MttJocy (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BTTVLogo.png